Environmental advocates challenge permit for Centralia coal plant
On November 2, EarthJustice filed a petition asking the EPA to block the renewal of an air pollution permit for TransAlta Corporation’s coal-burning power plant in Centralia, Washington. The Southwest Clean Air Agency (“SWCAA”) had renewed the permit on September 17, and on September 28, the Sierra Club and other likeminded groups appealed the renewal. The November 2 petition alleges violations of the federal Clean Air Act and state pollution laws. In particular, the petitioners oppose the permit because it does not contain emissions limits for greenhouse gases or mercury, and because it does not require the best controls for regional haze-pollution.
TransAlta Corporation bought the Centralia coal-burning plant in 2000. In efforts to reduce emissions, TransAlta invested in $200 million worth of “scrubbers.” However, the plant continued to offend environmental groups, as it was a primary source of carbon dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxide emissions. The petition claims that these emissions constitute air contaminants that are detrimental to human health and welfare, property, and business. In particular, the petitioners contend that the SWCAA has failed to provide for the control of carbon dioxide and mercury emissions, failed to provide for adequate control of nitrogen oxide emissions, and failed to require Reasonably Available Control Technology to control carbon dioxide and mercury emissions. The petitioners also claim that the permit does not adequately protect against haze-pollution over Mount Rainier, the Olympic and North Cascades National Parks, and other forest, wilderness, and recreational areas. These areas are designated Class I areas under the Clean Air Act.
The petitioners, which include the Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, and Northwest Environmental Defense Center, also object to the permit because it does not integrate the terms of a settlement agreement reached in September 2009 between TransAlta and the Washington Department of Ecology. The agreement is a result of mediation over air quality disputes between the two entities. The key points of the agreement are TransAlta’s goals of: 1) decreasing nitrous oxide emissions by 20%; and 2) implementing technology to control and monitor mercury emissions. Although the petitioners would like this agreement to be part of the renewed permit, they also claim that the agreement itself is inadequate. On November 9, the last day of the public comment period on the agreement, they filed a letter seeking heightened restrictions, including a 90% (rather than 50%) reduction in mercury emissions.
Coal-fired plants are becoming an increasingly salient issue in climate law. The EPA has recently sided with environmental groups to block permits that fail to adequately address greenhouse gas emissions, but it remains to be seen whether this will become a common outcome in court.
Public Citizen lawsuit seeks to require Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to regulate greenhouse gases
On Tuesday, the environmental group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) seeking to require it to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The lawsuit is believed to be the broadest attempt so far to force a state to control greenhouse gases through the permits granted by a state for power plants, refineries, factors, and similar industrial facilities. Public Citizen’s filing is most likely timed to coincide with Congress’ consideration of landmark climate change legislation and the December 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Public Citizen’s complaint contains arguments similar to those successfully advanced in the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court found that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that the Administrator was required to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Public Citizen complaint makes additional arguments based on Texas law. For example, while the Texas Clean Air Act says the TCEQ shall regulate contaminants that threaten public health, safety and welfare “by all practical and economically feasible methods,” Public Citizen alleges that during permit disputes Texas rules bar any discussion of carbon dioxide or global warming and “block the collection of information about CO2 emissions in Texas – which are immense, increasing, and dangerous.”
Texas was poised as a prime target for Public Citizen as it apparently tops the list of states in man-made greenhouse gas emissions and would rank seventh in the world, if it were a separate country. Additionally, Texas Governor Rick Perry has hotly opposed regulating CO2 or other greenhouse gases either at the state or national level.
A ruling requiring regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would likely immediately impact ongoing disputes over new coal-burning power plants, the largest industrial source of CO2 in Texas.
According to Public Citizen, opponents to new coal-burning power plants in Texas have repeatedly been barred from raising legal arguments about the proposed plants’ CO2 emissions, with state administrative judges citing the lack of state or federal regulations. “The time has come for the TCEQ to take its head out of the sand and begin the process to regulate CO2 emissions from Texas sources. Because the agency will not do so on its own, we are seeking to have a Texas court order it to do so,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office.
Lawsuit targeting Dominion Virginia coal-fired power plant forces revised permit, but GHG emissions challenge unsuccessful
A recent victory for environmental activists in a lawsuit against Dominion Virginia Power may turn out to be less significant than it first appeared. The case, filed in Richmond Circuit Court by the Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition, challenged the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) permit granted to Dominion. The permit was to allow the construction of a coal-fired power plant in southwest Virginia. While the court invalidated the permit on the grounds that it allowed an escape hatch based on cost and feasibility in the mercury emission limits, the portions of the permit relating to greenhouse gas emissions, which were also challenged in the complaint, were found valid by the court. Subsequent to the ruling, on September 2, 2009, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality approved an amended air permit for the plant, including stringent new mercury emissions limits without the objectionable escape hatch.
While lawsuits by environmental advocates have successfully delayed or derailed plans to construct new coal-fired power plants on several occasions recently, Dominion spokesman Dan Genest explained that they have no intention of abandoning plans to build the power plant in question, and noted that the recent decision, “upholds virtually all of the conditions in both air permits, which may be the most stringent in the country.” Key to continued building plans, the court upheld the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit which regulates conventional pollutants such as carbon dioxide and soot. This permit was sustained despite the coalition’s claim that the plant will emit 5.4 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly, an amount roughly equal to the annual carbon output of all of the cars in the metro Richmond area.
According to Cale Jaffe, an attorney for Southern Environmental Law Center, the mercury limit in the revised permit has been reduced from 72 pounds of mercury emissions per year, to just 4.5 pounds per year – a 94% reduction. Dominion Generation CEO David A. Christian said he thought the air permit might be “the toughest ever issued.”
Tennessee Valley Authority ordered by EPA to revise permit for coal-fired plant
The US Environmental Protection Agency has sided with environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, and ruled that a permit for a Tennessee Valley Authority coal-fired plant in Drakesboro, Kentucky failed to account for air pollution (specifically the greenhouse gas nitrogen oxide) in violation of the Clean Air Act. Parties have until October 9 to seek judicial review of the EPA’s order, or state regulators will have until October 27, 2009 to submit a revised permit in response.
In EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s order, she found that the permit issued by Kentucky’s Division for Air Quality for the 2,273 MW Paradise Fossil Fuel Plant failed to require pollution controls and monitoring for nitrogen oxide pollution. Specifically, in requiring the TVA to submit a revised permit application, Jackson said the current permit did not (1) include proper analysis for the plant's three boilers for NOX when making upgrades; (2) require adequate monitoring systems for opacity and NOX; or (3) provide adequate monitoring from soot emissions from the coal washing and handling.
However, on four other claims Jackson sided with Kentucky’s Division for Air Quality and TVA finding that the permit (1) should not require year-round operation of the selective catalytic reduction system and (2) should not include case-by-case determination of the maximum achievable pollution control technologies for several boilers.
According to TVA, the Paradise plant generates 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year, enough to supply more than 930,000 homes. By 2010, TVA estimates it will spend about $6 billion on emissions controls at its fossil-fuel plants to ensure that this power supply is generated as cleanly as possible, consistent with efficiency.
The Clean Air Act allows parties to seek judicial review of the order within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. The notice of the final order was published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2009.
Ohio Edison agrees to repower coal plant with biomass, reducing carbon emissions
Ohio Edison Company has agreed, as part of a consent decree, to retrofit one of its coal-fired power plants to use primarily biomass. The agreement was reached in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio and announced by the US Justice Department and the US Environmental Protection Agency last month. The agreement originates from a lawsuit filed in 1999 against Ohio Edison for violations of the Clean Air Act. The original lawsuit was resolved with a consent decree in 2005, which mandated that the company reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). In order to accomplish this goal, the 2005 consent decree left Ohio Edison with only three options: close the plant, install a scrubber or repower with natural gas. The new, modified consent decree, however, opts for what the parties believe will be a more cost-efficient and environmentally sound fourth option.
Beginning in 2012, the R.E. Burger plant Units 4 and 5 near Shadyside, Ohio will repower with mostly biomass fuels. These units will run on at least 80% biomass; 100% biomass if all goes according to plan. Ohio Edison may co-fire the plant with not more than 20% low sulfur coal. By switching to biomass, the new plant will reduce emissions of SO2 from current levels by 14,000 tons annually, reduce emissions of NOx from current levels by 1,300 tons annually and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from current levels by more than 1.3 million tons annually. After the retrofit, the company will be in compliance with the Clear Air Act’s New Source Review provisions.
Officials also hope that this new facility will be largely “carbon neutral.” Even though carbon dioxide emissions are greatly reduced from present levels, when the biomass is burned it will still emit about 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. However, officials hope that these emissions will be largely offset by the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the biomass as it is grown. Biomass fuels include wood from tree trimmings and dedicated sustainable nurseries, agricultural crops, grasses and vegetation waste. Examples include the fast growing cottonwood tree or left-over corn stalks.
The new retrofit is also less costly that the other options. For example, a spokesperson for Ohio Edison’s parent company, FirstEnergy Corp., stated that installing scrubbers would cost the company $330 million, while the cost of converting to biomass was significantly cheaper at an estimated $200 million.
The modified consent decree is subject to a 30-day comment period, which will end September 16, and is awaiting approval by the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Georgia court ruling regarding Longleaf Energy coal plant reversed
The Georgia Court of Appeals last week reversed and remanded a Superior Court decision that would have required Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for carbon dioxide emissions from a proposed new coal power plant. The $2 billion Longleaf Energy Plant would be the first new coal plant in Georgia in more than two decades. GreenLaw, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sought to block the plant’s construction based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA allowing greenhouse gases to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Construction was halted in June 2008 when Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore ruled that federal air pollution laws require permits for all pollutants that could be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act - including carbon dioxide. Judge Moore’s ruling invalidated the Longleaf Energy Plant’s permit, and was the first time a judge applied the Massachusetts v. EPA carbon dioxide holding to emissions from an industrial source.
With federal legislation to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases pending, the Appeals Court held that Judge Moore's order would pre-empt federal efforts to regulate the gas, require the state to invent new regulations and ultimately lead to "a regulatory burden on Georgia never imposed elsewhere."
In reaching their decision, the three-judge panel agreed with Judge Moore on one key claim: that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was not independent in her evaluation of the decision to issue the permit. Therefore, the appeals panel sent the case back to the Superior Court with directions to vacate ALJ Stephanie M. Howells' approval of the coal-fired plant permit saying Howells had employed the wrong standard of review in approving the permit. Howells' 108-page decision, which followed a 21-day hearing, contained language suggesting the EPD director's decision to issue a permit should be given some deference.
LS Power, the plant's developer, said the company looks forward to moving the project forward after years of delays. "We'll take it," said company spokesman Mike Vogt, who said the ruling overturns 95 percent of the trial judge's order. "We feel pretty good about our chances here."
“We are very disappointed that the Court rejected other important claims that are critical to the protection of public health," said Justine Thompson, director of GreenLaw, which challenged the permit. Ms. Thompson asserts that the Court of Appeals confused congressional discussions of comprehensive carbon dioxide controls through a cap-and-trade scheme with the regulatory scheme at issue in the case before the court. She said GreenLaw will appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.
EPA seeks remand of Desert Rock coal fired power plant permit to consider gasification technology as BACT
Despite granting a permit for the proposed Desert Rock coal fired power plant in New Mexico less than a year ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently moved its Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) to remand the permit to allow the EPA to reevaluate its decision. In particular, the EPA wants to consider requiring the plant, which would be built by Desert Rock Energy Co., to use low-carbon dioxide gasification technology. The technology gasifies coal before it is burned, resulting in lower carbon dioxide emissions than conventional coal burning technology.
The EPA’s move appears to be the latest example of a shift in policy at the agency regarding carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA under the Bush administration did not generally seek to regulate carbon dioxide. Indeed, the EPA refused to consider the plant’s potential carbon dioxide emissions during the original permitting process last year. The EPA under the Obama administration, on the other hand, has been actively seeking to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. In the future, the EPA is expected to reverse its former policy on power plants such as the proposed Desert Rock plant and require them to consider carbon dioxide emissions as part of their prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) permit applications.
Proponents of the proposed Desert Rock power plant on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northwestern New Mexico claim it will generate $50 million a year in revenue and bring badly needed jobs to a reservation that faces massive unemployment rates. Opponents of the Desert Rock plant, including environmental groups and the state of New Mexico, have argued that the plant, which would be the third coal fired power plant in the region, will damage the region’s air quality and the health of its residents.
The EPA’s request is also the latest in a series of setbacks for proposed coal fired power plants across the country. Earlier this year, under pressure from environmental groups, the Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transportation Cooperative announced that it would not build a coal fired power plant as planned. Instead it now plans to build a natural gas fired plant along with a few wind towers. In Kansas, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. has taken to the courts to fight the state’s denial of its application for an air quality permit for two coal-fired plants in western Kansas.
US-Canada "clean energy dialogue" to address coal, oil sands, and carbon capture
On February 19, President Obama made his first foreign trip, as he traveled to Canada to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. One of the main topics on the agenda was a “US-Canada clean energy dialogue” – an attempt to cooperate across the border to protect the environment and improve energy security. One of the main goals of the new initiative is to reduce carbon emissions, in particular by developing cost-effective carbon capture technologies and ways to push the emissions underground instead of into the atmosphere. The leaders also mentioned creating a more efficient electric grid.
Carbon emissions are an existing problem in US coal deposits, and Canada has similar problems with its oil sands. In fact, a week before President Obama arrived, Syncrude Canada Ltd., a major oil company, was charged with violating environmental laws in connection with toxic waste caused by oil mixing with sand.
The meeting reflects Obama’s stated goal of being a global leader in climate change. He is hopeful that the dialogue between the United States and Canada will spark the interest of other countries that have environmental issues, in particular India and China. The discussion of goals did not get very specific, however – President Obama stated, “I think the clean energy dialogue is an extraordinary beginning because right now there are no silver bullets to solve all of our energy problems.” Canada has allocated $1 billion to its Clean Energy Fund, and the United States economic stimulus package has allocated $3.4 billion to “Fossil energy research and development.”
Kansas judge takes Sunflower arguments under advisement; Legislature may moot ruling
*Updated 2/23/09 - added link to administrative proceeding opinion.
Oral arguments on a motion filed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Sunflower Electric Power Co. were heard earlier this month in US District Court for the Federal District of Kansas. That ruling may be moot, however, as the Kansas Legislature is considering a bill (SB 265) that would limit the state’s environmental regulators from enforcing air quality standards in excess of federal limits. The legislature also considered a proposal to allow Sunflower to resubmit its request for air quality permits to build the new coal-fired plants. The Republican-led legislature passed three bills previously permitting the construction of the plants to go forward, but the Governor rejected the bills and the legislature failed to override the Governor’s veto.
As reported in an earlier post, Sunflower filed a lawsuit naming the Governor, Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson, and Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Rod Bremby, because Sunflower was denied a permit to build two coal-fired power plants allegedly due to concerns about CO2 emissions. Sunflower alleges that neither Kansas nor the United States currently regulates CO2 emissions. Secretary Bremby argues that his decision was based on the US Supreme Court’s 2007 holding in Massachusetts v. EPA, that CO2 was a pollutant and a Kansas attorney general’s opinion giving him broad authority to protect the environment and human health. Judge Eric Melgren has taken the arguments under advisement and plans to rule on the motion at a later date.
Meanwhile, an administrative proceeding concerning the Sunflower plants may be heard by the Kansas Supreme Court. In December, an administrative officer ruled against Sunflower in a non-binding opinion. That opinion now may be headed for the state Supreme Court for a final determination. What will happen if the federal and state courts issue opposing rulings? Perhaps the Legislature will moot this question before we can find out.
Highwood coal-fired power plant suspended in favor of natural gas
In a sign of the changing times, a group of Montana electric utilities for the first time has suspended plans to build a coal-fired power plant in favor of immediate plans to build a natural gas power plant that would emit fewer greenhouse gases. The Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative (“SME”) early last week announced that it would halt plans to build its $900 million 250-megawatt coal-fired Highwood Generating Station. Instead, construction will continue with a different fuelbase: natural gas. SME has decided to build a 120-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in addition to a few wind towers in place of the coal-fired plant.
The announcement comes on the heels of several years of opposition to the project on the grounds that the proposed coal-fired plant would emit too much climate changing greenhouse gases and fine particulate. Environmental groups such as the Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthjustice filed multiple lawsuits challenging the permitting of the project, the rezoning of the site where the proposed project is to occur, and even the funding of the project by the federal government.
Tim Gregori, SME’s General Manager and CEO explained that the proposed coal-fired plant had been considerably delayed by the opposition from environmental groups and that there is an “immediate need for base load electric generation” that needs to be addressed. The new plans will ensure that energy will be available in 2011 and also allow SME additional time to sort through the regulatory uncertainty of the new federal leadership.
Environmental groups view SME’s change of fuelbase as directly related to the new administration in Washington. President Obama has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by the year 2050. This includes ensuring that utilities turn to cleaner and renewable sources of energy like natural gas and wind. Environmental groups are optimistic that other proposed coal fired power plants like Sunflower in Kansas and Desert Rock in New Mexico will soon follow SME’s lead.
Center for Biological Diversity to devote $17 million to climate litigation and advocacy over five years
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) today announced the launch of its San Francisco-based Climate Law Institute. The stated mission of the Institute is to bring a strong climate focus to the Center’s five program areas -- Biodiversity, Public Lands, Oceans, Urban Wildlands, and International – in what the Center calls a “coordinated strategy to protect species and ecosystems from the sweeping and potentially catastrophic effects of warming.” The Center states that it is “dedicating” $17 million to this effort over the next five years.
What does the Center mean by a “coordinated strategy”? Apparently more climate-based litigation, and more administrative and regulatory action designed to serve as bases for additional climate-based litigation. The Institute states it will accomplish its mission through: strategic, creative litigation; scientific petitions to protect species; administrative and policy advocacy; and public education and outreach.
This announcement leaves no doubt that litigation is the Institute’s primary focus. The Institute’s Advisory Board includes:
- Luke Cole, Director of the Center for Race Poverty and the Environment, who often represents plaintiffs in citizen-based environmental actions including the Kivalina Relocation Planning Committee in the Kivalina climate litigation;
- Patrick A. Parenteau, Professor of Law at Vermont Law School (where he teaches a course entitled Climate Litigation), and Senior Counsel at its Natural Resources Law Clinic; and
- Deborah Sivas, an environmental litigator and Professor of Law at Stanford where she directs Stanford’s Environmental Law Clinic.
Coal is a major target of the Institute, which lists as one of its goals: “Prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants and coal mines while quickly phasing out existing coal-fired power plants.” The Institute also says it intends to “[p]revent the creation of an oil-shale or tar sands energy sector.”
Sunflower Electric seeks oral argument on preliminary injunction regarding air quality permit for coal-fired power plant
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Kansas has asked the US District Court for the District of Kansas to allow a hearing on its request for a preliminary injunction in Sunflower's $1.5 billion lawsuit against the state. Sunflower filed the lawsuit last month (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation v. Sebelius) claiming that Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) officials had violated Sunflower's rights to equal protection and to conduct interstate commerce by denying Sunflower's application for an air quality permit for two coal-fired plants in western Kansas. The lawsuit seeks $1.5 billion in damages and an injunction to prevent the state from considering carbon dioxide emissions in future proceedings in connection with Sunflower's application for an air quality permit for the coal-fired energy plants.
The Kansas Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case, contending that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because an appeal is pending before the Department of Administration's Office of Administrative Hearings. On July 22, 2008, a state court dismissed an action by Sunflower saying that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter because the Kansas Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over issues arising from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's denial of a permit application. The Kansas Supreme Court has postponed the case before it until the Office of Administrative Hearings rules.
Sunflower contends that it is not asking the federal court to rule on issues of state law or to enjoin the state administrative proceedings. Instead, the company is bringing its challenge based on Equal Protection and Interstate Commerce claims under the United States Constitution, alleging that Kansas Health and Environmental Secretary Rod Bremby denied the permit despite his own staff's recommendation to approve the application. Bremby denied the permit on the grounds that the new plants' carbon emissions would contribute to global warming. Sunflower contends that carbon dioxide emissions are not currently regulated in Kansas or the United States and have not been used as a reason to deny an air permit for any other facility in Kansas. Sunflower contends that the case implicates the rights of over 400,000 citizens of Kansas and over 1.5 million citizens of other states whose energy needs would be met in part by electricity generated by the proposed coal-fired plants.
Electric company brings federal lawsuit against Kansas Governor for denial of permit for coal-fired power plant expansion
A Kansas electric power company, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (“Sunflower Electric”), has sued the state government in federal court, seeking injunctive relief relating to the denial of an air quality permit for its planned power plant expansion. On Monday, November 17, 2008, Sunflower Electric filed a complaint (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation v. Sebelius) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her administration have violated Sunflower Electric's right to equal protection under the law and are unlawfully prohibiting interstate commerce. Sunflower Electric seeks a Court Order declaring that its rights have been violated and enjoining and vacating the Kansas government’s denial of an air quality permit.
Back in October of 2007, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) denied Sunflower’s air quality permit required for construction of new coal-fired electricity generating units. Citing that carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed coal-fired power plant presented a “substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the environment,” KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby explained that KDHE had the authority under KSA 65-3012 to deny such permit “[n]otwithstanding a permit applicant’s compliance with all other existing provisions of the Kansas air quality act.” In announcing his decision, Secretary Bremby stated that, “KDHE will work to engage various industries and stakeholders to establish goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and strategies to achieve them . . . which is consistent with initiatives underway in states leading the effort to address climate change.”
Sunflower Electric, a consumer-owned, electric distribution cooperative, argues in its action that the KDHE’s purported basis for denying the permit is a “pretext,” and in actuality, KDHE was motivated by the improper purposes of (a) advancing “political aspirations, and (b) prohibiting the exportation of electric energy outside the State of Kansas.” Complaint, p. 2. Several of the allegations point to Secretary Bremby’s testimony at a Kansas legislative hearing where he testified perfunctorily about his analysis that the potential carbon emissions from the power plants constituted a “substantial endangerment.” Complaint, ¶¶ 47-54.
Other allegations mention that in early 2008, the Kansas Legislature passed bills that would require the Secretary to reconsider the denial of the permits and evaluate the permit application without considering in any way the potential carbon dioxide emissions. All three of these bills were vetoed by Governor Sebelius. Complaint, ¶¶ 61-66.
The air permit application is for a power plant expansion at Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb Station in Finney County, Kansas. According to Earl Watkins, president and CEO of Sunflower Electric, the $3.6 billion project would “create 329 jobs earning more than $16 million in annual wages and fully complies with all state and federal requirements while helping to secure our energy independence.”
